▲ 607 ▼ Me_irl (discuss.online) submitted 2 months ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/me_irl@lemmy.world 64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (11 children) It's time spent not working. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) Not a waste of capital though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (9 children) Labour is a form of capital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) So let's take a philosopher who works by thinking and feeling. And this by thinking, feeling and doing other things he's increasing his labor potential. What am I missing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) ...the actual labour? Philosophers aren't paid to just sit around thinking, it's only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children) Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish. Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (10 children) Not a waste of capital though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (9 children) Labour is a form of capital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) So let's take a philosopher who works by thinking and feeling. And this by thinking, feeling and doing other things he's increasing his labor potential. What am I missing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) ...the actual labour? Philosophers aren't paid to just sit around thinking, it's only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children) Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish. Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (9 children) Labour is a form of capital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) So let's take a philosopher who works by thinking and feeling. And this by thinking, feeling and doing other things he's increasing his labor potential. What am I missing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) ...the actual labour? Philosophers aren't paid to just sit around thinking, it's only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children) Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish. Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (8 children) So let's take a philosopher who works by thinking and feeling. And this by thinking, feeling and doing other things he's increasing his labor potential. What am I missing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) ...the actual labour? Philosophers aren't paid to just sit around thinking, it's only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children) Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish. Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (7 children) ...the actual labour? Philosophers aren't paid to just sit around thinking, it's only once they put the labour into publishing their thoughts that they get paid (possibly). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children) Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish. Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children) Right but the moment of publishing is the last stepin the long, tedious thinking and analysis process. Without it there will be nothing to publish. Anyways, absolutist statements hold no water, other news at 11. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) I mean you're just arguing that thinking is labour for a philosopher. The statement remains correct. The philosopher is encouraged to think about publishable things instead of just for the freedom of thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (4 children) Stretching the other way, painter who's not painting is wasting capital? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Yeah, if they're not doing some other form of labour. I really feel like you might need to spend more time thinking on the meaning of the quote if you're wasting time trying to find gotchas where things that can potentially be done just for pleasure are being turned into labour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) I went as far as reading it in original to make sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation but my questions remain unanswered. The quote I think operates on assumption that there's a direct correlation between time spent labouring and financial outcome. In capitalist world we have here, this correlation does not exist universally. it's still possible to engage creatively, express yourself and be paid for it. Not for everyone, but still possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) No, you definitely added that assumption yourself, it just talks about saving capital. You are assuming there is equal money to made in self expression as there is commercial execution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago Well yes, I'm trying to find some interpretation where the quote actually makes sense. No I'm arguing that the world is too large to make such assumptions universally, as demonstrated by objective reality. permalink fedilink source parent
